I did a search on the hebrew מַלְכוּת, malkut and came back with 91 occurrences. But I would like to do a search on the aramaic equivalent. I would like to know the aramaic equivalent (malku ?) and how to search it on HMT-W4. Thank you and God bless!

I did a search on the hebrew מַלְכוּת, malkut and came back with 91 occurrences. But I would like to do a search on the aramaic equivalent. I would like to know the aramaic equivalent (malku ?) and how to search it on HMT-W4. Thank you and God bless!

If I want to reference the occurrences of the Aramaic malkutha as equivalent to the Hebrew malkut (91x), should I use the lemma malku (57x)?

Additionally, if you want to exclude Hebrew results from your searches almost completely, make a custom Range with the following definitions:

Gen. 31,47;Jer. 10,11;Dan 2,4-7,28;Ezra 4,8-6,18;Ezra 7,12-26

Gen 31,47 is mostly in Hebrew but has a single Aramaic word in it. The first four words in Dan 2,4 are in Hebrew, but the rest is in Aramaic. The remaining definitions are in Aramaic only.

This is particularly useful for grammatical searches of a more general nature - if you, for instance, want to figure out how many Aramaic nouns there are in total in the Old Testament. Just search for [NOUN] after defining the range and you're done. Or almost, really. You'd have to subtract the few Hebrew results in Gen 31,47 and Dan 2,4, which in this case would be 2311 hits minus the Hebrew 6 nouns giving 2305 Aramaic nouns.

Conversely, if you want to make similar searches in Hebrew where you'd want to leave the Aramaic out, you need a range with the following definitions:

The two verses, Gen 31,47 and Dan 2,4, that have both Hebrew and Aramaic in them must be dealt with manually here as well. Oh, and if you aren't using European notations, you may have to switch all the commas out with colons to make the ranges work.

Interests:old houses, antiques, gardens, fresh food, good coffee, live music

Accordance Version:11.x

Posted 01 March 2015 - 12:23 PM

Gen 31,47 . . . has a single Aramaic word in it

Hi Peter,

Some might be confused by your analysis of יְגַ֖ר שָׂהֲדוּתָ֑א . Even Rosenthal analyzes "two words translating a Hebrew toponym into Aramaic" (A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, I.1.). Perhaps you could clarify for them.

It is indeed two word and should be understood as such - As a toponym both words make up a single "unit", of course, but I should none the less have written "two words" instead of one. Thank you for pointing it out, Michel!

Additionally, if you want to exclude Hebrew results from your searches almost completely, make a custom Range with the following definitions:

Gen. 31,47;Jer. 10,11;Dan 2,4-7,28;Ezra 4,8-6,18;Ezra 7,12-26

Gen 31,47 is mostly in Hebrew but has a single Aramaic word in it. The first four words in Dan 2,4 are in Hebrew, but the rest is in Aramaic. The remaining definitions are in Aramaic only.

This is particularly useful for grammatical searches of a more general nature - if you, for instance, want to figure out how many Aramaic nouns there are in total in the Old Testament. Just search for [NOUN] after defining the range and you're done. Or almost, really. You'd have to subtract the few Hebrew results in Gen 31,47 and Dan 2,4, which in this case would be 2311 hits minus the Hebrew 6 nouns giving 2305 Aramaic nouns.

Conversely, if you want to make similar searches in Hebrew where you'd want to leave the Aramaic out, you need a range with the following definitions:

The two verses, Gen 31,47 and Dan 2,4, that have both Hebrew and Aramaic in them must be dealt with manually here as well. Oh, and if you aren't using European notations, you may have to switch all the commas out with colons to make the ranges work.

Note: be sure to use the book order in one of your Hebrew Bibles (not an English translation)

Ah yes. This is because of the fact that I'm using the European verse notation, so it works fine for my ranges in Accordance. But I actually like the American system better - the only reason I haven't made the switch yet is that I'm more used to working with the former.